From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The bureaucrats have outdone themselves this time. Having failed to win the war of ideas, they’ve now decided to outlaw dissent — politely, of course, wrapped in the usual bureaucratic gauze of “integrity,” “trust,” and “information ecosystems.” The “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change” signed at COP30 in Belém reads like something George Orwell would have rejected for being too on-the-nose.

“Recognizing that the urgency of the climate crisis demands not only decisive action by States, but also the broad engagement of all segments of society…”

The document opens with this predictable invocation of “urgency,” that tired incantation meant to suspend reason and justify whatever comes next. Then, in a breathtaking act of cognitive dissonance, it demands the “broad engagement” of everyone — right after announcing that only one kind of engagement will be tolerated: the kind that affirms the “accurate and evidence-based” line approved by the United Nations and its friends at UNESCO.

That phrase — “accurate and evidence-based” — appears repeatedly, as if repetition alone could substitute for the messy, disputatious process of actual science. The authors claim they are:

“Concerned by the growing impact of disinformation, misinformation, denialism, deliberate attacks on environmental journalists, defenders, scientists, researchers and other public voices…”

Translation: anyone who asks awkward questions about climate models, data uncertainties, or policy failures is now guilty of “denialism” — a term borrowed straight from the lexicon of religious heresy.

If this were merely another puff of diplomatic hot air, it would be laughable. But this Declaration goes further. It openly calls on governments to:

“Create and implement policies and legal frameworks… that promote information integrity on climate change, and respect, protect and promote human rights, including the right to freedom of expression…”

A breathtaking contradiction — the kind that only international bureaucrats can deliver with a straight face. How do you “promote freedom of expression” while crafting laws to decide which expressions are acceptable?

It even instructs technology companies to:

“Assess whether and how platform architecture contributes to the undermining of climate information ecosystem integrity, providing researchers with access to data to ensure transparency and build an evidence base.”

This is not science. It’s surveillance with a moral halo.

The Declaration also proposes that funders:

“Donate to the Global Fund for Information Integrity on Climate Change, administered by UNESCO on behalf of the Initiative.”

The same UNESCO that has spent decades producing feel-good propaganda about “education for sustainable development” will now sit atop a global information czardom, deciding which facts are fit for public consumption. You could not invent a better parody of bureaucratic overreach if you tried.

Of course, every tyrant claims to be acting in defense of “truth.” The Inquisition burned heretics for the purity of the faith. The Soviet Union jailed scientists for questioning Lysenkoism — all in the name of protecting “scientific integrity.” Today’s climate clerisy is no different. They’ve simply replaced the cross with the IPCC logo and the rosary with a PowerPoint deck of emissions charts.

It’s hard not to laugh when the Declaration solemnly pledges to:

“Promote the integrity of information… in line with international human rights law, including freedom of expression standards.”

The authors seem blissfully unaware of the contradiction — or perhaps perfectly aware, and confident no one will call them on it. After all, “freedom of expression” is easy to promise when you’ve already defined “wrong expression” out of existence.

The whole effort reeks of insecurity. If the science were as “settled” as claimed, why this obsession with silencing critics? Why the endless campaigns to “enhance public trust” and “reinforce confidence in climate science”? Genuine science welcomes skepticism; propaganda demands belief.

And make no mistake — this is propaganda. The repeated invocation of “trust” and “integrity” is the language of control, not inquiry. Real trust is earned through openness, debate, and evidence — not imposed by decree. You don’t need a UNESCO-managed “information ecosystem” to tell people that water boils at 100°C. You only need censorship when your “facts” are too fragile to withstand scrutiny.

Perhaps the most infuriating part of this whole charade is its paternalism. The Declaration calls on governments to:

“Promote campaigns on climate change and support initiatives that promote literacy and the public’s right to access reliable information on the matter.”

In plain English, that means: fund propaganda that tells citizens what to think, while labeling opposing views as “unreliable.” It’s the intellectual equivalent of serving baby food to adults — spoon-fed, pre-chewed, and flavorless.

The signatories — Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay — should be ashamed. These are nations that once prided themselves on open inquiry and democratic debate. Now they’ve joined hands in an effort to codify orthodoxy and punish deviation.

The irony, of course, is that the so-called “climate disinformation” they’re desperate to eradicate often turns out to be inconvenient truth. It was “misinformation” once to question the “hockey stick” graph, until it collapsed under scrutiny. It was “denialism” to point out that climate models have consistently over-predicted warming. It was “dangerous” to note that renewable mandates drive up energy costs and destabilize power grids — until blackouts forced even sympathetic governments to reconsider.

Now, instead of correcting their errors, the climate establishment is doubling down — shifting from persuasion to coercion. Their message is simple: believe, or be silent.

The real danger here isn’t to the climate — it’s to freedom itself. When governments, media, and supranational bodies conspire to determine which opinions may be voiced, science ceases to exist. In its place arises a bureaucratic priesthood — fluent in the language of “sustainability,” “integrity,” and “evidence-based policy,” but utterly blind to its own authoritarianism.

This Declaration, signed under the tropical humidity of Belém, should go down not as a milestone in “information integrity,” but as a monument to intellectual cowardice. Unable to compete in the free marketplace of ideas, the climate establishment has chosen to shut down the market altogether.

They call it “information integrity.” Let’s call it what it is: climate totalitarianism with a smile.